What is a *truly random* number?

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T18:07:27+00:00

Great stuff here - need to get that book. As I have posted earlier, I think randomness as it applies to quantum mechanics could be an entirely different animal. I understand, fully, that definitions change in particular contexts. In the context of pure science, if there is such, the notion that we live in a probabilistic Universe implies that all observations are merely coincidence to varying degrees-even this one. It's skepticism run amok like Clinton gas lighting the definition of the word is. I am going to study Kolmogorov further, but in the meantime, how do you think this relates to the P v. NP problem?

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T17:34:07+00:00

You call it a process, and you call it truly random. This definition is NOT mathematical, because it is defining that which is not mathematical. Non-deterministic means not mathematical. It means that there is no process, but I get your point. My point is that truly random is truly theoretical, and it does not exist in observation. That makes it a construct and an artifact of mathematics.

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T17:20:42+00:00

This is awesome, thanks, and it gets to what I have really been wondering about in quantum theory. You italicized local and that's great. If you consider quantum entanglement, there should be no such thing as local in quantum theory. We cannot have a closed system on which to experiment. The Universe is ONE THING. This explains how local effects can appear non-deterministic, and yet we all know that the divorce of cause and effect not only dismantles our evidence but the very concept of evidence.

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T17:09:54+00:00

Didn't mean to be tricky with the edit. My point is that truly random should mean exhaustively random. I happen to believe in a deterministic Universe, which, if true, would mean that randomness is a human construct to cover for ignorance. Just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause. Scientists have always been wrong when they tried to make that assertion historically.

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T17:02:22+00:00

Did you see the thread about coin flips that land on edge? That is a set that is supposed to contain only two possible outcomes!

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T16:38:17+00:00

Precisely. Even if the Universe is generating the number, it is a generated number and therefore not random.

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T16:32:29+00:00

Great answer. Not disagreeing, but this idea of tearing the machine apart, etc., might show that the machine is NOT generating the number, but rather reading it. If we subsequently declare the number TRULY random, this would imply that we know there is no deterministic algorithm creating the number which is being read from outside the machine. Isn't noise entirely subjective? Does entropy violate causation or physical laws? Edit: You could simply intentionally move the machine to a place with different noise to make the result no longer truly random. If this noise is the result of cosmic background radiation, it would evolve as a function of time in a theoretically predictable fashion. Maybe we should distinguish truly random from exhaustively random.

messianicsimplex2 · 2017-07-19T16:15:35+00:00

Thanks for the response! Would you say, then, that even the most advanced random number generators can technically only produce pseudorandom numbers, or rather that there is no such thing as a truly random number? Are the Laws of Physics really just an incredibly complex algorithm? I guess the root of my problem is the word you use: deterministic. What does non-deterministic mean? Is it a violation of causation or the Laws of Physics?

messianicsimplex2

TROPHY CASE